by Seth in group seth — 2016-05-02 10:30:28 thought 20889
    no comments
    May 2, 2016 by Seth

    Shout out write or wrong ? …

    ← awaiting management approval 10:18 am
    by Seth in group seth — 2016-05-02 09:44:41 thought 20888
    no comments
    May 2, 2016 by Seth
    … is this a laughing matter?
    by Seth in group seth — 2016-05-02 08:58:35 thought 20887
    1 comment thread
    Seth 2016-05-02 09:14:48 [item 20887#51788]
    pondering hmmm …. i don’t know about this

    Discovered via the room tag interactions, shallow extended to google images.  Me, i call this thinking.
    by Seth in group seth — 2016-05-02 08:35:10 thought 20886
    no comments
    May 2, 2016 by Seth

    surprise surprise

    … through my kitchen window.

    I never did that before.  Oh, i’ve seen the moon, waining towards new in the morning … er, but not for a long time … and never through my kitchen window. 

    It feels like a long lost dear friend found again smugheart … only looking backwards at me as she walks away.


    and later in another day

    the moon becomes a sliver

    waining away, waining away

    as the day dawns.
    by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-30 04:27:51, changed 2016-05-02 07:53:04 thought 20872
    no comments
    May 1, 2016 by Seth
    to be elaborated ...
    by Seth in group seth — 2016-05-01 07:59:18 thought 20878
    no comments
    May 1, 2016 by Seth
    i ran into this article while doing research for my unpublished thesis, “Buddah Lied”. itself is an interesting resource.  i tried to sign up there with my normal email and my most unsecure password and saw their procedures in work.   i find those quite interesting.  i think i’ll try again via their front door using a facebook login. 
      by Seth in group seth — 2016-05-01 07:51:38 thought 20877
      1 comment thread
      Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-05-03 08:43:31 [item 20877#51789]
      Main theorem basically stands with materialism.  If there are no senses outside the material such is what you get. Snippet from the PDF below:
        by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-30 10:27:09 thought 20874
        7 comment threads
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-05-01 08:27:58 [item 20874#51746]
        Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 14:20:30 [item 20874#51744]
        Ming or Chinese as a language has a picture and a sound for a name (designation) & a feeling about something. ‘Tis a bit different from english which has spelling, no picture & sound. I guess context is controlled by the sound component. 
        Seth 2016-05-01 05:42:37 [item 20874#51745]
        i see what you mean … with Chinese you get a picture to call up (provoke) the context to associate with every word … with English you just get the spelling of the word which pails in its ability to pictorially provoke a context.  With English we have to rely more on how we say the sound of the word in our mind. 
        … even less that that with the written word. Old TR claimed in F2F – communication that meaning is 7% words, 35% tonality & the rest body language.  In China the the ancient emperors unified their provinces by changing the meanings of the characters a bit like political correctness & munging of the day . The Chicoms still do that. I have noticed in the various online dictionaries that the etymologies have become vague which existed even 10 years ago. Anyway this was a quick wallaby I put here for quick reference may relocate it later.
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-05-01 12:51:20 [item 20874#51749]
        Seth 2016-05-01 12:45:33 [item 20874#51748]
        thing about 1-1 correspondence, it is not by single words … it better matches with phrases … and even better with whole sentences … and even better still with complete paragraphs.  you seem always to presume that you can go with a 1-1 on words, interperting perhaps that being necessary to get to GW’s “UNIFICATION” …

        thing is context does not work that way … not on a 1-1 correstpondance of name to thing. 

        A real short example is “white house” … but this really is far more important than that almost triveal example belies. 
        Yep munge it all the way to the entire Cosmos & you will have a 1-1 correspondence to everything thumbs up Good Show! cool
        Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2016-05-01 14:11:09 [item 20874#51752]
        Seth 2016-05-01 13:01:58 [item 20874#51750]
        well your meaning would have been received here more accurately had you used the word “combine” in your sentence rather than “munge” which, i presume, connotes a distaste subjective only to yourself.   try reading it that way and see if it rings truer even in your mind … it does in mine.    of course then transmitting representations from separate mind to separate mind would be quite impossible laughing
        Munge (outside the urban dictionary) is just cobbling or jamming a bunch of stuff  together for some effect. Applied to psychology it produes neuroses & psychosis. It can be unjammed & un-munged by the Meta-model & Milton-models of NLP. Like “what specifically” are you talking about?  “How specifically is your theory of any use to anyone?”  etc … etc.
        Seth 2016-05-02 05:57:27 [item 20874#51760]
        ok and all with all that … moving right along with GW’s document here ...
        Seth 2016-05-02 06:17:13 [item 20874#51765]
        Seth 2016-05-01 14:29:26 [item 20874#51754]
        Combining things is how we make new ones !!!!
        Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-01 14:33:17 [item 20874#51755]
        Combining things is how we make mixtures !!!!! New thing – maybe not.
        Seth 2016-05-02 05:56:11 [item 20874#51759]
        and the difference between a mixture and a new thing is ?????
        Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-02 06:05:13 [item 20874#51762]
        Mixture is like a soup. Keep adding more leftovers & it is still soup. A new thing might be making a biscuit.
        i don’t see the difference … a soup is a thing in and of itself … so is a biscuit.   combining a lever with something heavy gives us a hammer  … because it is a combination of different things are we to judge its utility negatively ? … NO WE ARE NOT! …  that is just a very personal judgement on your part … it does not obtain outside of your subjective mind. 
        Seth 2016-05-02 06:30:31 [item 20874#51766]
        Seth 2016-05-02 06:10:19 [item 20874#51763]
        if one stays within a model of binary logic,  “not (not true) = true”,  and so multiplying “(-x  * -x)” yields “x^ 2”.  There is no way we can multiply two negative numbers and arrive at a positive number withing the number line the way we have conceived the sequence.  So then if we can, we are not “within a binary logic model” … no we are in an entirely different plane. 
        so how is that related, in GW’s mind to a 1-1 correspondence between the metaworld and the world of possibilities ?
        Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-02 06:13:35 [item 20874#51764]
        The laws of arithmetic say that multiplying 2 negative numbers is a positive number. Go back to school. BTW multiplying 2 negative numbers on a line doesn’t make geometric sense – multiply seems to add a 2nd dimension. 
        please read more carefully … i also implied that multiplying 2 negative numbers is a positive number … why is is necessary for you to think i made a mistake? 

        … and yes, absolutely! … i think that multiplying makes a new dimension smug.    In fact whenever we can identify a duality, a spectrum … we can then combine it (mung if you must  aug) with another duality to create new dimension.    try this one …
          happens not happens
        Seth 2016-05-02 07:05:58 [item 20874#51773]
        Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-02 06:02:52 [item 20874#51761]
        Folks on your side of the aisle must not watch the Science Channel – all those things about physicists looking for the unified theory of everything .. maybe need to watch the movie .. read some Einstein etc. not that they will ever get there the way they are pursuing it, but ….
        well it seems to be quite a human thing to grok a “unified theory” … or in the case here with GW’s usage of it, a perfect match between thought and actuality (or words and “being” depending on your ontology).   everybody does it … your side … my side … your mind … my mind.   i see no profit in trowing insulting  transaction between us  about that. 
        April 29, 2016 by Seth
        between the spiritual and the material …

        with a distinction between the subjective and the objective?

        will all instances fall on the corresponding same side of the distinction? 

        Said differently the Venn diagrams of both will be identical, the only difference being the name of the circles.

        About the method of thought in this item …

        Let me review extensional logic, which is what is being used here.   Picture a  discrimator machine .. in its hopper we drop examples, there are 4 lights on the machine named :  “spiritual”, “subjective”, “material”, “objective”.  If we drop the example called “logical” in the hopper,  then both the “material” and “objective” lights will go on … the other two will not ← we agree on that.   So that one example supports my thesis … but it certainly does not prove it. 

        So try dropping something else in the hopper and see which lights go on?

        by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-29 06:05:42, changed 2016-04-29 12:34:29 thought 20867
        2 comment threads
        Seth 2016-04-29 08:46:22 [item 20867#51681]
        Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-29 08:15:38 [item 20867#51679]
        If you can’t make the distinction that is fine for you. Others have bridged the gap. The spiritual is not a logical realm, but it is a consciousness one. Not all consciousness is subjective. For subjective there needs to be an Ego. 
        You have introduced another distinction here when you say,  “the spiritual is not a logical domain” ← with which i agree.   Notice that the subjective is not a logical domain either.   So there is no difference there, we could use either the spiritual/material or the subjective/objective to say the same thing. 

        Then you introduce yet another,  consciousness … well obviously consciousness is subjective ← there can be no doubt about that.  So there as well we can use either distinction to separate that which is conscious from that which is not … the conscious ones are subjective. 

        … er, except you go on to say, that not all consciousness is subjective.   Can you point out an instance of consciousness that is not subjective? 

        What do you really mean by “there needs to be an ego” ?  Asking “what is and is not my ego” seams to me to be the same question as aking “what is and what is not subjective to me” ← is that different with you?
        Seth 2016-04-29 10:32:31 [item 20867#51685]
        Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-29 09:03:14 [item 20867#51682]
        Your first sentence is false.  Two things which are not something else are not necessarily equal.  A turd and a giraffe are not rocks – that does not make them equal.  It gets worse from there.  I go with GW who has lots to say on the subject of consciousness as a fundamental catergory of every ultimate particle (of the cosmos).
        Tai Shu commentary P.2625 & P.2693 . Perhaps an Ego (in the RS sense) belongs to the higher animals as a group soul, but is individual in man.  No need to replace words which already have meaning to munge them together so that your other ideas work. 
        well it is hard for me to follow that train, for i never used any absurd idea like “things which are not something are necessarily equal” ← where did you get the strange idea that i did?

        then too, “that every particle of the cosmos has a subjective side” does not contradict anything that i said.  I know i have a subjective side,  were i a rock i can imagine that i would have one too. 

        Replacing distinctions with new ones which are more consistent from a larger kontext is part of real thinking … it is part of changing mind … it is part of consciousness .   i say, “do it if you dare … or don’t do it, to  keep your mind”. 
        April 29, 2016 by Seth

         ← it’s purpose seems to be to find friends.

        Very kewl way i got my URL cool  … no stingy resource on this domain.   It is so very strange that Nathan’s subjective judgments zigg away from what is so very natural on the web and that he tried to impose those on thinking domains.

        Incidentally, talk about games … this site is gamed al a queee !   It is mostly targeted towards dating games … but who knows … maybe it can be used for other groupings too.  and yes, it does have groups.

        how they are playing a game:

        Buy your friends, meet new people, become more popular!
        • Use Pets Cash to buy Pets that you like.
        • When a Pet is bought, its value increases by 10%.
        • The previous owner and the Pet each receive 5% cash profit.
        • Assets = Cash + Purchase price of your Pets (Help)
        • Increase your Assets and get a spot on the Leaderboard!

        I don’t know … it just kind of feels strange to be owned as a pet … or to own pets laughing … almost BDSMesque.  This is in fact primarily a dating site, yet the local filtering does not seem to work right  … I have yet to determine if it is any good to me to find people who i can think with.
        by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-29 10:46:30 thought 20868
        no comments
        April 29, 2016 by Seth
        … or said differently, if it does not change in relationship to you, then you are not aware of it. 

        I cannot think of a contra example.  Can you?
        by Seth in group seth — 2016-04-29 05:42:23 thought 20866
        1 comment thread
        Seth 2016-04-29 09:19:03 [item 20866#51683]
        Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-29 08:24:16 [item 20866#51680]
        Awareness is awareness; change is change.  I am aware of my morning cup of coffee. The experience changes little if any from day to day. I may change. Munging rarely yields much. To detect change one has to be aware, but change can take place without our awareness of it.  The shape of a turd crawling out of our respective asses undoubtedly changes before being unked off & deposited in the bowl. Are we aware of the change? Some do not bother to look. Some take selfies. laughing
        well i did not mean they were the same thing … only that they can not be separated.   my topic is spoken in the style of “the medium is the message” which also  does not mean that we cannot distinguish the medium from the message.   Consider lightning and thunder … not the same thing … right?   But we never see the one without hearing the other … so they are a thing together … they cannot be separated. 

        then later you say,  “to detect change one has to be aware” … i would point to the same thing only i would say,  “detecting change is being aware”.   If you coffee was always and forever there unchanged, you would not even call it your “morning” coffee.  

        Now it is certainly true that the converse of “if it does not change in relationship to you, then you are not aware of it” is false.   Just because you are not aware of something, does not mean that it does not change.   But change is necessary for awareness. 

        I am still looking for my counter example.